Right. And Iggy is just endorsing Charest's artful dodge, which is necessary to prevent the truly crazy people from legislating much worse. Sometimes the Conservative Menace must be beat down via stealth and deception. Shush, children, shush!

21 comments:

really...just a bunch of diversion...arent' there more important issues of the day to deal with. Yes, lets spend our limited time and efforts to deal with the 25 or so women in Quebec that actually wear the head-to-toe covering. While its true the bill 94 doesn't really do or change anything, but the perception is that the liberals (the party of the immigrant) is now on the same side of the conservatives and separatists. In that regard, the right wing is laughing all over the place.

This is Canada - the most multicultural and tolerant place on EARTH. Surely we could have dealt with this issue on a case by case bases without the need to make it a federal issue.

Oh, and I guess now the large CROSS will be coming down from the legislature in Quebec? Surely if the motive for bill 94 was secular and the removal of religion from the state, then it will. If it doesn't, then bill 94 does look like an attack on a particular minority.

The issue is the treatment of woman.Most are forced into bondage by wearing this.

It sends a message to would be immigrants. We are a country that will defend woman's rights.If you wish to enslave your wife, we will stand up for her.

I'm not in total disagreement that the niqab can't be bad for women, but if we're going to have a rallying cry that we're fighting to free women, then why not also extend it to the Amish or women in that polygamist cult? If you think about it, things may be worse for these women since their communities are cut off from the rest of society. In the case of the niqab, we're trying to restrict rights of women who are trying to interact with the rest of society -- those seeking government service.

But, if we're going to "save women from themselves" via dress, could we also toss in such stupid things like high heel shoes and skinny jeans that can damage a women's health as much as a complete body veil damages a woman's health via low Vitamin D. (And if you've ever had to run in high heels or a long ankle-length skirt, you'd know how restrictive these things can be.)

The fundamental and simple question to all of this is: Aside from the obvious indecency laws, can the state dictate what women cannot wear?

For all of the concern about the state infringing on personal rights, I am surprised there is much less ire from the usual lot who decry all about other manners of state infringement.

I cannot understand why Canada seems to be a nation that does not include the oppourtunity to wear a certain religious dress. Since we cannot divine exactly the conditions under which each individual in that minority makes that choice to wear it, the musings about the unpleasant origins of its dress advance nothing as is typical of genetic fallacies. Otherwise, if there was such a preoccupation with the unsavoury origins of some cultural symbols, surely the wedding ring would have be duly replaced by now.